[ad_1]
During the Canon EF mount days, there was a running joke about the ancient Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM being in the lineup. The lens had been around for about 25 years when the EOS R system was announced. A lot of people joked that Canon kept it around for the after purchase revenue stream replacing focus motors out of warranty. Sure the lens was cheap, but you really god what you paid for.
Over the last 2-3 months we have received numerous suggestions that Canon would finally bring a modern version of the lens to the RF mount. We have been apprehensive to report on it, because it was spoken about for so long and nothing every happened.
The latest claim from an anonymous source is that an RF 50mm f/1.4 is in the hands of a select few photographers, but that an announcement “isn’t imminent”.
With the brilliant, yet expensive Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the great value $100 RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, there is a gaping pricing hole that Canon could fit into with a modern RF 50mm f/1.4 lens. If Canon isn’t going to make it easy for Sigma and/or Tamron to fill the gap, we feel it’s almost mandatory that Canon produces such a lens.
50mm prime lenses are probably in more camera bags than any other prime lens. Dropping $2K on one doesn’t make sense for a lot of shooters, but those same shooters would love something above the STM “thrifty-fifty”, while a great value….. you know…
We have seen recent patent applications for RF 50mm f/1.4 optical formulas, but we have seen them numerous times over the last 15 years.
Sometimes Canon does or doesn’t do things that make very little sense to us. This has always been one of those things.
This could be a nice lens to roll out modern linear focus motors into the RF lineup. No more STM lenses outside of the sub-$500 price point please!
We hope there is more to come on this topic, but we’re not getting too excited about the possibility yet.
Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.
Go to discussion…
[ad_2]
Source link
